Chaotic Good Cleric In Need of Atonement?

[Doug McCrae]

I feel the whole way you handled it was just a bit awkward and disjointed. (So quite chaotic, then.) It offends my roleplaying sensibilities for lacking style, but I don't think an atonement is in order.

 

[Elephant]

Awkward and disjointed is a good way of putting it. As a player, I wasn't in top form during this game, and my portrayal of my character suffered because of that.

 

[hong]

Here is the thing. Your DM's problem most likely has nothing to do with alignment. Your DM's problem has to do with what sounds a lot like cold-blooded killing on your character's part. However, these things often end up being cloaked in the language of alignment, because that's how D&D is built.

This has nothing to do with in-game motivations, allegiances, forces of the universe and similar things -- what goes into alignment, IOW. In-character, you gave the bad guys two chances to live, and they didn't take them, so I would say that any alignment considerations are well satisfied. However, _how_ you go about portraying this sort of stuff is important too. It doesn't matter if it's human babies, orc babies or evil cultists, or whether it's justified or not. Slaughtering unresisting creatures out of hand often leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, and this will colour their reactions to your actions.

Thus, what I would do is say to the DM that your character's acts aren't a true reflection on what they actually feel or believe (assuming this is in fact the case, of course). The DM may still say you did bad stuff and require atonement of some sort, but at least this way, you clear up any possible misconceptions or bad blood that may affect the game in the future.

 

[Ferox4]

Yes, it ultimately comes down to what your DM thinks. I can see an argument being built versus Dimble's transgressions against Chaos. Choice is an absolute to chaotic characters, and though Dimble did give them a choice I wonder if their options were really "options."

Atonement? Maybe. Again, I defer to the adjudication of your DM. If I were Dming I would perhaps find an alternative punshment - withholding spells for a week, denying access to spells that cause damage to others for x amount of time, or denying access to higher level spells for a time.

 

[Darkness]

Dimble cast a Blade Barrier along the back of the stands, which blocked escape and diced a couple of the evil spectators.

Neutral.

He then offered the bad guys a chance to escape: They could jump down 80 feet to the arena floor, risking death, and Dimble would let any survivors go.

8d6, or 28 points average. Hm. Rather deadly, but nonetheless neutral.

At this point, I (metagamingly) suspected that perhaps these weren't big tough guys, and (in character) offered them a second chance. "If you wish to repent of your evil ways and be spared, go over there. Those of you who think you can take me, come over here."

Good.

A few of them tried to fight my cleric, and most decided to "convert" ... and, of course, a Zone of Truth revealed that they were lying. Dimble then slew each one who lied about converting (which was all of them).

Neutral.

Assuming you're CG...
If your usual behavior is Good, no biggie. If it's Neutral, you might or might not become CN. I'm tending toward "might not," BTW. Tymora is CG, so her clerics can be CN. Thus, I don't see the need for atonement in any case.

 

[Nifft]

You can put it this way, which may clear things up.

"I didn't kill them for lying. I killed them for pledging their eternal souls to the service of Orcus, even after I offered them a chance to repent."

-- N

 

[Kesh]

What they said.

He offered them two chances to change their ways (albeit at gunpoint), and they not only refused, they chose death/combat or tried to lie. I think he was a little heavy-handed, but within his alignment.

Now, if any of the bad guys had simply refused to do anything and he slaughtered them, that would be stepping over the line. And they did have that option available, so it's more than just "this or that." If the DM wanted to make this a moral issue, he could have had some of them just panicked and frozen in fear, or defiantly refusing to commit "suicide by cleric."

{Edit} As an aside, this is similar to a situation where the hero has his gun trained on the bad guy. Tells the bad guy to surrender. Bad guy then jumps out a window (*splat*) or tries to draw a weapon (*blam*).

The only questionable bit is:

Good Guy: "Now, tell me where the Boss is and confess. It's your only way out of this."
Bad Guy: "Okay, sure! He's in the next room, and I'll tell you everything about the drugs!"
Good Guy: "... I know for a fact he's not in the building, and this was about a murder."
Bad Guy" "Um... aheh. Yeah... that's what I meant!"
Good Guy: *blam*

Refusing repentance is not usually a good enough reason to kill someone. However, considering this was taking place in a realm of evil and taking prisoners really wasn't an option, it's forgivable in the long run.